Speaker 1: School of Humans. Helen Got Murder Line actively investigates cold
Speaker 1: case murders in an effort to raise public awareness invite
Speaker 1: witnesses to come forward and present evidence that could potentially
Speaker 1: be further investigated by law enforcement. While we value insights
Speaker 1: from family and community members, their statements should not be
Speaker 1: considered evidence and point to the challenges of verifying facts
Speaker 1: inherent in cold cases. We remind listeners that everyone has
Speaker 1: presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Speaker 1: Nothing in the podcast is intended to state or imply
Speaker 1: that anyone who has not been convicted of a crime
Speaker 1: is guilty of any wrongdoing. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 2: On December third, twenty twenty five, forty year old Charity
Speaker 2: Billis and her six year old twins, a daughter and
Speaker 2: a son were fatally shot at their home in Bonanza,
Speaker 2: West Arkansas.
Speaker 3: As we said last.
Speaker 2: Week in Part one, Charity had been going through an
Speaker 2: ugly divorce battle with her husband, a fifty six year
Speaker 2: old local doctor named Randal b Alis. They had been
Speaker 2: battling in court for months, and on December second, Charity
Speaker 2: and Randall went to a divorce hearing in Fort Smith.
Speaker 2: As we've said before, we're not sure what the exact
Speaker 2: status of that divorce is now. What we do know
Speaker 2: is that on December second, Judge Shannon Black gave Charity
Speaker 2: and Randall a ben shorter, finalizing their divorce. However, in
Speaker 2: order for a divorce to become final with the court,
Speaker 2: a written decree has to be filed.
Speaker 3: With the court.
Speaker 2: According to court papers, Charity filed a request for an
Speaker 2: emergency hearing before this could be done. This hearing was
Speaker 2: supposed to take place on December third. When Charity didn't
Speaker 2: show up for that hearing, someone called for a welfare
Speaker 2: check and that's when Charity in the children's bodies were
Speaker 2: found in the home. On December fourth, Randall All us
Speaker 2: his attorney Michael Pierce, filed to dismiss the divorce action
Speaker 2: due to Charity's death. Charity's son, John from a previous relationship,
Speaker 2: has also filed his own legal.
Speaker 3: Motion pertaining to what he claims is his mother's half
Speaker 3: of the estate.
Speaker 2: This is a complicated case and it is still unfolding
Speaker 2: since then. Some of Charity's family members and a lot
Speaker 2: of news stories have commented on the alleged domestic violence
Speaker 2: in the home, allegedly perpetrated by Randall. But this week
Speaker 2: we got the transcript of Charity and Randall's divorce hearing.
Speaker 2: For the first time, we will hear Randall's side. As
Speaker 2: it turns out, there were allegations of domestic violence and
Speaker 2: abuse on both sides.
Speaker 3: Hopefully this new information will help us.
Speaker 2: Figure out what was really happening behind closed doors in
Speaker 2: that house. I'm Catherine Townsend. Over the past seven years
Speaker 2: of making my true crime podcast, Helling Gone, I've learned
Speaker 2: that there is no such thing as a small town
Speaker 2: where murder never happens. I've received hundreds of messages from
Speaker 2: people all around the country asking for help with an
Speaker 2: unsolved murder that's affected them, their families, and their communities.
Speaker 2: If you have a case you'd like me and my
Speaker 2: team to look into, you can reach out to us
Speaker 2: at our Helen Gone Murder Line at six seven eight
Speaker 2: seven four four six one four five. That's six seven
Speaker 2: eight seven four four six one four five, or you
Speaker 2: can send us a message on Instagram at Helen Gonepod.
Speaker 2: This is Helen Gone Murder Line. The Sebastian County Sheriff's
Speaker 2: Office has been putting out information about the case. To
Speaker 2: their credit, they've released quite a bit of detail about
Speaker 2: what's going on, but obviously, as we said last week,
Speaker 2: since it is an ongoing investigation, there is a lot
Speaker 2: that we still don't know. We know that Charity and
Speaker 2: her little son and daughter were all fatally shot. What
Speaker 2: we don't know yet is who shot them or why.
Speaker 2: Charity's family, her father Randy Powell, and her adult son,
Speaker 2: John Powell, have been very outspoken about the fact that
Speaker 2: they believe doctor Randal Billis was involved in the deaths
Speaker 2: of Charity and her six year old twins. While the
Speaker 2: bodies of Charity and the kids were sent to the
Speaker 2: Arkansas Crime Lab in Little Rock and were waiting for
Speaker 2: an autopsy to determine the exact cause of death, it
Speaker 2: didn't take long for police and media to focus on
Speaker 2: Charity and Randall's relationship, which had been unraveling behind closed
Speaker 2: doors for months. The divorce was declared final one day.
Speaker 2: Charity and her children were found dead the next day.
Speaker 2: As we reported last week, Charity was Randall's third and
Speaker 2: fourth wife.
Speaker 3: They originally married.
Speaker 2: In May of twenty twelve, around four months after Randall's
Speaker 2: second wife, thirty four year old licensed practical nurse Shauna,
Speaker 2: died at her and Randall's home of a gunshot wound
Speaker 2: to the head. Shawna's death was ruled a suicide. Randal
Speaker 2: told police his relationship with Shauna had been volatile and
Speaker 2: that he was in the process of divorcing her. In fact,
Speaker 2: at the scene, officers noted boxes in the living room
Speaker 2: that looked as if someone was packing to leave, and
Speaker 2: Randall actually made a comment to one of the officers
Speaker 2: of the crime scene saying he wanted to call his
Speaker 2: attorney from the crime scene and telling me wanted to
Speaker 2: call the divorce off. The officer noted in his report
Speaker 2: he told Randal he couldn't have access to his phone
Speaker 2: and that Randall got irate when detectives wanted to question him, further,
Speaker 2: saying that the case was cut and dried, but there
Speaker 2: was also evidence that Shawna shot for the ammunition that
Speaker 2: killed her herself. She was seen on camera in Walmart
Speaker 2: buying those bullets. In the end, Randal was never arrested
Speaker 2: or charged in connection with shawn His suicide. After marrying
Speaker 2: in twenty twelve, Charity and Randall got divorced in October
Speaker 2: of that same year. It's not clear why they decided
Speaker 2: to divorce, but according to court documents, they had a
Speaker 2: major incident in twenty thirteen that might shed some light
Speaker 2: on why they were futing at that time. According to
Speaker 2: court transcripts from the twenty twenty five divorce hearing, Charity
Speaker 2: admitted that she pulled a gun on Randall during a
Speaker 2: domestic argument in twenty thirteen, though she stated that he
Speaker 2: had also pulled guns on her multiple times in the past.
Speaker 2: So you have these two completely different stories of what
Speaker 2: was actually going on behind the scenes. And then it
Speaker 2: got even stranger because Randall's lawyer, Michael Pierce, asked Charity
Speaker 2: during these divorce proceedings about a book that Charity had
Speaker 2: allegedly written, though Charity insisted Randall also had a lot
Speaker 2: of input into what she wrote in that book, which
Speaker 2: we'll get to in a second. The book described alleged
Speaker 2: abuse that Charity suffered as a child, but according to Charity,
Speaker 2: it was never published. From the transcripts of the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five divorce court hearing, we actually learned that prior
Speaker 2: to February fifteenth or sixteenth, twenty twenty five, around the
Speaker 2: time of the domestic incident between Charity and Randall, that
Speaker 2: Charity and her father Randy Powell had not spoken, according
Speaker 2: to what she told the court. In ten years after
Speaker 2: the fifteenth she reached out to her father and they
Speaker 2: started texting. Then they began texting hundreds of times. They
Speaker 2: referred to an incident in court where Charity pulled a
Speaker 2: gun on Randall back in twenty thirteen. Randall alleged that
Speaker 2: after that event, Charity went to jail and that it
Speaker 2: was during that time that Randy Powell and his wife
Speaker 2: took custody of John Powell, Charity son. Randall stated that
Speaker 2: Randy Powell had actually insisted on taking custody of John
Speaker 2: in exchange for bailing Charity out of jail. We don't
Speaker 2: have any way of pulling this case in the court
Speaker 2: record because the record has been expunged, but it becomes
Speaker 2: very clear in reading these divorced transcripts from twenty twenty
Speaker 2: five that Charity and Randal by Alice had very different
Speaker 2: narratives regarding what was going on over the time period
Speaker 2: from twenty thirteen to twenty fifteen. Charity admitted that to
Speaker 2: get her out of legal trouble involving the incident where
Speaker 2: she pulled the gun on Randall, that Randall had paid
Speaker 2: lawyers eighty thousand dollars over a period of two years,
Speaker 2: and at some point after the case was expunged from
Speaker 2: the record, Randall and Charity reconciled. They got back together
Speaker 2: and remarried in November of twenty fifteen. According to marriage
Speaker 2: license records, she was thirty, he was forty six. In
Speaker 2: August of twenty fifteen, there was another incident, this time
Speaker 2: between Charity and her stepmother, Sonya Powell. Just a quick
Speaker 2: note here, we're always referring to Randal Billis as Randall
Speaker 2: because Charity's father's name is Randy Powell, and I don't
Speaker 2: want to.
Speaker 3: Confuse the two.
Speaker 2: The backstory to this was that in twenty fifteen, Sonya
Speaker 2: and Randy Powell had been caring for Charity's son John.
Speaker 2: That incident hinged on something that took place on August
Speaker 2: twenty eighth, twenty fifteen. Sonya and Randy were at the
Speaker 2: Sebastian County Fair and they had John with them. Sonia
Speaker 2: claimed she and her her husband, Randy, came to visit
Speaker 2: with John. According to police reports, Sonia stated that she
Speaker 2: had had John in their physical and legal guardianship for
Speaker 2: almost two and a half years, so that would match
Speaker 2: the twenty thirteen timeline. Sonya stated in June of twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: the court had dissolved that guardianship. John went back to
Speaker 2: live with his mother, Charity and her husband Randall.
Speaker 3: Sonya also said she.
Speaker 2: And Randy had cared for John Powell on and off
Speaker 2: for his entire lifetime. On that night, she claimed she
Speaker 2: and her husband Randy saw Charity and John at the fair.
Speaker 2: She said she was coming toward them to say hi
Speaker 2: to John, and at that moment, Randal b Allis came
Speaker 2: up from behind her, grabbed her by the shoulder and arms,
Speaker 2: and spun her around and threatened to kill her and
Speaker 2: her husband Randy. Sonia said she grabbed his shirt in
Speaker 2: response to that. Then there was a Greenwood police officer
Speaker 2: named Detective Nicholas Driscoll, and they ended up arresting Sonya
Speaker 2: Powell and charged her for a battery offense against Randall.
Speaker 3: She pleaded not guilty. Now. She claimed in her core.
Speaker 2: Papers the detective only showed up at the end of
Speaker 2: the event when she was grabbing Randall's shirt, and that
Speaker 2: the detective didn't see the beginning when she claimed Randall
Speaker 2: put his hands on her first. Eventually, the restraining order
Speaker 2: that was put in place was removed, the case was
Speaker 2: dismissed with prejudice, and there was no further legal action
Speaker 2: taken after that, so by that time Charity and Randall
Speaker 2: were back together. This time before tying the knot, Charity
Speaker 2: and Randall had a prenuptial agreement in place. They signed
Speaker 2: it in October of twenty fifteen, shortly before they married
Speaker 2: for the second time. The prenup stated that each of them,
Speaker 2: Charity and Randall, had property that they had acquired prior
Speaker 2: to the marriage, and they claimed they had each divolved
Speaker 2: the status of those properties and the value of their
Speaker 2: states to each other. The prenup stated that if they divorced,
Speaker 2: they agreed that neither one of them would have any
Speaker 2: claims to the personal property of the other that had
Speaker 2: been individually acquired. Randall agreed to support Charity financially as
Speaker 2: long as the marriage continued, but it was stated that
Speaker 2: in the event of a split, he would pay Charity
Speaker 2: ten thousand dollars and that was it. The prenup also
Speaker 2: stated neither of them would be allowed to inherit the
Speaker 2: other one's personal property in the event of their deaths
Speaker 2: unless they were married for twenty years or more, in
Speaker 2: which case either of them would be allowed to inherit.
Speaker 2: But it's confusing because the prenup is pretty clear. But
Speaker 2: then you have the question of what is individual property
Speaker 2: and what is joint property because at some point they
Speaker 2: did buy a home together, the home that Charity and
Speaker 2: the kids were living in at the time of their death.
Speaker 2: Charity's father, Randy Powell, has told crime Online and other
Speaker 2: media sources he believes Randal wanted to kill Charity for
Speaker 2: what he called financial gain, and that that's why Randall
Speaker 2: had filed for the divorce dismissal after Charity in the
Speaker 2: kid's bodies were found.
Speaker 3: But is there any truth to that? Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Charity and Randall were fighting about money, perhaps not surprisingly,
Speaker 2: they had very different stories about finances when they testified
Speaker 2: at their divorce hearings. They don't dispute that Randall Powell
Speaker 2: was the sole breadwinner as an independent physician. He estimated
Speaker 2: his salary was around four hundred thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 2: Charity had a nursing degree, but until this point had
Speaker 2: never obtained a nursing license, so she was a homemaker.
Speaker 2: According to County Property records. Charity and Randall bought their
Speaker 2: home together, described by the Sebastian County Assessor as a
Speaker 2: four bedroom, four bathroom just over twenty five hundred square
Speaker 2: foot home, in twenty seventeen for four hundred and thirty
Speaker 2: five thousand dollars. Today that property is worth around seven
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty to seven hundred and sixty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: We wondered if, since this property was bought together after
Speaker 2: the marriage, if presumably it might not fall under the
Speaker 2: umbrella of the prenup and would be something that could
Speaker 2: possibly be divided up in case of a divorce, And
Speaker 2: it turns out that that was addressed in Randall's court filings.
Speaker 2: He actually asked the judge that when dividing their assets,
Speaker 2: that the court apply the conditions of the prenuptial agreement
Speaker 2: to their real estate and personal property. Randal and Charity
Speaker 2: maintained separate checking accounts. She claimed he controlled all the finances.
Speaker 2: He claimed that due to her spending, she would not
Speaker 2: be a good steward of their money. Randal testified that
Speaker 2: he replenished her bank account to pay off her credit
Speaker 2: card debts, putting in around ten thousand dollars every month
Speaker 2: or two. He admitted they did argue about money. He
Speaker 2: testified that they argued, for example, about how many packages
Speaker 2: that Charity would have delivered, and also about her cosmetic surgery.
Speaker 2: He said in front of the judge, quote, I wasn't
Speaker 2: able to put money into my retirement account for quite
Speaker 2: some time now because of your excesses, having your nails
Speaker 2: done all the time, having your eyebrows done, your eyelash
Speaker 2: is done, laser therapies, your lips done, your breast done twice,
Speaker 2: getting all of these cosmetic things. Every week you would
Speaker 2: go and do a facial, you would do fillers end quote.
Speaker 2: I want to note here the reason Randall speaking directly
Speaker 2: to Charity is because she was representing herself in court.
Speaker 2: He had an attorney, Michael Pierce, but Charity was questioning
Speaker 2: Randal directly. Charity claimed that all of their bank accounts
Speaker 2: were inexplicably empty and that Randall had not shown her
Speaker 2: any tax information in twenty twenty four. She also stated,
Speaker 2: when it came to the home equity line of credit
Speaker 2: that Randall had taken out on their house that he
Speaker 2: said was to build an addition to the home, that
Speaker 2: he never allowed her to know what was going on
Speaker 2: with that money, which he denied. Randall stated in court
Speaker 2: he wanted to stick with what was in the prenup,
Speaker 2: giving Charity ten thousand dollars in the event of a divorce.
Speaker 2: But he also said that by his understanding, she would
Speaker 2: also be entitled to half the value of the marital home.
Speaker 2: She would get her vehicle, a BMWSUV that he had
Speaker 2: gifted her. He would keep his vehicle and be responsible
Speaker 2: for his student loans. So the next question is who
Speaker 2: was really abusing the children. Charity said Randall was abusive.
Speaker 2: He hit back, accusing her in court of lying, coaching
Speaker 2: the children, and alienating him as a parent. Things got
Speaker 2: ugly at that court hearing. We know that Charity and
Speaker 2: Randall got into a huge fight on February sixteenth, twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five. Charity accused Randal of trying to choke her
Speaker 2: and of endangering the children. But again, not surprisingly, they
Speaker 2: have two very different accounts of what went down that
Speaker 2: day and what has happened since then. We know some
Speaker 2: things for sure. We know that Randall was charged with
Speaker 2: aggravated assault, third degree domestic battery, and two counts of
Speaker 2: endangering the welfare of a minor because the children were
Speaker 2: present in the home during the assault. In October of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, Randall negotiated a plea deal. He accepted
Speaker 2: a single charge of misdemeanor third degree domestic battery. He
Speaker 2: was sentenced to a one year sentence, suspend it, a
Speaker 2: fifteen hundred dollars fine, and was ordered to attend a
Speaker 2: domestic violence program and to have no contact with Charity.
Speaker 2: Charity told her friends and family she was upset about
Speaker 2: this deal. She did not feel that Randal had gotten
Speaker 2: the punishment that he deserved.
Speaker 3: A side note about choking.
Speaker 2: Choking is a major red flag in domestic violence cases.
Speaker 3: We've talked about this a lot on this podcast.
Speaker 2: In fact, studies show if a woman is choked by
Speaker 2: her partner or a husband, he is much more likely
Speaker 2: to kill her later. Experts say victims who experience what
Speaker 2: they call non fatal strangulation by an intimate partner are
Speaker 2: seven hundred and fifty percent more likely to be murdered
Speaker 2: by that partner in future. After the split and after
Speaker 2: the choking incident, Randall rented a townhouse in Fort Smith
Speaker 2: with two bedrooms. He told the judge he hoped to
Speaker 2: host the children there for visits and eventually possibly moved
Speaker 2: to another home. Charity claimed that Randall was a narcissist,
Speaker 2: one whose coercive control led to her and her children
Speaker 2: living in terror. Meanwhile, Randall claimed Charity was the abusive one.
Speaker 2: He said she alied to the children and coached them.
Speaker 2: Since we don't know what happened inside that house, we
Speaker 2: do have to consider the possibility this could have been
Speaker 2: some type of murder suicide situation. Again, until the autopsy
Speaker 2: in the forensics are back.
Speaker 3: We don't know. We just have no way of knowing
Speaker 3: for sure.
Speaker 2: Again, if Randall is suspected of this crime, we have
Speaker 2: no idea of what his motive would have been.
Speaker 3: On December second, at that.
Speaker 2: Final hearing, Randall was awarded joint custody of his children,
Speaker 2: which would have been an improvement from the situation he
Speaker 2: had been living in since February, where Charity basically had
Speaker 2: full custody of the children. Charity's son, John, has stated
Speaker 2: Randall was the abuser in his relationship with Charity, but
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty, John, who was seventeen years old at
Speaker 2: the time and living with Charity and Randall, filed a
Speaker 2: petition for removal of disability of minority. Basically, he was
Speaker 2: asking the court to emancipate him from his mother and
Speaker 2: his stepfather. When he filed that petition, John was a
Speaker 2: couple of months.
Speaker 3: Away from his eighteenth birthday.
Speaker 2: He had graduated from Greenwood High School that year, and
Speaker 2: he had a job at Atwoods and Fort Smith. The
Speaker 2: court allows anyone who is sixteen or older and meets
Speaker 2: certain criteria to obtain majority to be treated as an adult,
Speaker 2: and that's what John did. The petition talked about an
Speaker 2: incident that happened when John was living at the home
Speaker 2: with Charity and Randall. John alleged that on May fourteenth,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, that Charity and Randall slashed the tires of
Speaker 2: his two thousand and five Ford fifty one fifty truck
Speaker 2: with a knife or ice pick, deflating them and ruining them.
Speaker 2: John had bought the car himself and had the title
Speaker 2: listed in his name. John also asked for compensation from
Speaker 2: Charity and Randall for the tires. He said they were
Speaker 2: worth eleven to twelve hundred dollars each. He asked the
Speaker 2: court to give him his personal property back, personal property
Speaker 2: he said was at Charity in Randall's home. The court
Speaker 2: awarded him his property and the cost of the tires,
Speaker 2: So which one of them was abusive Randall, Charity or both.
Speaker 2: In the transcripts that we received of Charity in Randall's
Speaker 2: divorce hearing via Foya, we do get some more insight
Speaker 2: into what was going on behind closed doors. The following
Speaker 2: will be a paraphrased account of the court transcripts. Charity
Speaker 2: told the court the children were afraid of Randall, but
Speaker 2: Randall testified he was seeking full custody and that Charity
Speaker 2: had abused the children. Charity, representing herself, was allowed to
Speaker 2: question Randal directly when she asked him in front of
Speaker 2: the judge how it was that he was claiming she
Speaker 2: abused them. He replied, quote, you systematically lied to them,
Speaker 2: and you took six weeks after we separated to instill
Speaker 2: lies into them, and specifically about the abuse they obtained
Speaker 2: supposedly by me while you were in the hospital for
Speaker 2: two days. Randal was asked about his relationship with his older,
Speaker 2: now adult three children that he had with his first wife, Donna.
Speaker 2: He told the court he had no relationship with any
Speaker 2: of those children right now, because he claimed they were
Speaker 2: systematically turned against him by their mother. Randal stated that
Speaker 2: on the date of the big fight with Charity February sixteenth,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, that it was Charity who attacked him.
Speaker 2: He said this happened after he grabbed her phone. He
Speaker 2: said she was rageful, hitting me and kicking me. He said,
Speaker 2: to defend him, he set Charity up on the bathroom
Speaker 2: sink so he could have more room to open the
Speaker 2: door and get out. Randal said Charity instigated the fight.
Speaker 2: He claimed what their children have stated about the incident
Speaker 2: since to counselors regarding being afraid of him is due
Speaker 2: to Charity's coaching. He said that Charity had quote poisoned
Speaker 2: them and you have damaged them, severely damaged them end quote.
Speaker 2: Randal testified his and Charity's life together was pretty idyllic.
Speaker 2: He said they would often talk about how blessed they were.
Speaker 2: He questioned her directly about how she could say this
Speaker 2: if he was, as she alleged, abusive. She responded that
Speaker 2: Randal used classic coercive control moves. Then, Randal testified, approximately
Speaker 2: nine months before the February sixteenth incident, that Charity quote
Speaker 2: underwent a drastic transformation.
Speaker 3: You were drinking a bottle of wine every day.
Speaker 2: You were smoking marijuana heavily end quote. Randal testified that
Speaker 2: Charity had stopped drinking and smoking pot, but he claimed
Speaker 2: she continued to lie.
Speaker 3: To him about various things.
Speaker 2: Randal stated that Charity had started to glare at him
Speaker 2: in a hateful way and that he truly began to
Speaker 2: believe she hated him. Randal told the court he wanted
Speaker 2: full custody because he claimed that Charity quote poisoned those children.
Speaker 2: You abuse them in a sick manner. I'm not interested
Speaker 2: in you seeing the children end quote. Randal stated the
Speaker 2: kids were normal and happy and doing well in school.
Speaker 2: He alleged that Charity had told them lies about what
Speaker 2: Randal allegedly did to her. Now, he said, quote, I
Speaker 2: have evidence that they are miserable, absolutely miserable. They live fearful,
Speaker 2: miserable lives now, and that's your doing. One hundred percent
Speaker 2: you're doing end quote. Randal claimed that Charity also lied
Speaker 2: to the medical board about him taking heroin. He said
Speaker 2: as a result of that, she had blown up his life.
Speaker 2: He said he had seen psychiatrists to comply with the
Speaker 2: mandatory court order counseling that he had taken medications, but
Speaker 2: he stated that he was doing very well months down
Speaker 2: the line. So I want to go back to what
Speaker 2: precipitated this February sixteenth incident. Charity claimed in court that
Speaker 2: on February eighth, Randal told Charity that he was leaving her,
Speaker 2: that he wanted to find someone who loved him in
Speaker 2: the way that he needed to be loved. Then, she
Speaker 2: said she visited a divorce attorney, but Randall claimed that
Speaker 2: after that that they reconciled. He said Charity said she
Speaker 2: did love him, which is what he claimed he wanted
Speaker 2: to hear. Randall said, for a little while he thought
Speaker 2: everything would be okay, that maybe Charity didn't actually hate him,
Speaker 2: But he said he now believed she had always hated him,
Speaker 2: and that that's why, for example, he never met any
Speaker 2: of your old friends. He believed she had been talking
Speaker 2: bad about him to people for years. While Charity was
Speaker 2: questioning Randal in front of the judge, Charity said that
Speaker 2: it wasn't her intention to alienate him. She said, quote,
Speaker 2: I truly believe you're capable of love. All you want
Speaker 2: is control and money end quote. Then Randall's witnesses took
Speaker 2: the stand. One of Randall's colleagues from Mercy said he
Speaker 2: had worked with Randall for twelve years. He said he
Speaker 2: also knew Randall on a personal level. He said in
Speaker 2: all that time, Randall was professional and he saw zero
Speaker 2: signs of anger. We learned that Randall is working again.
Speaker 2: According to the divorce court transcripts, Randall testified on December
Speaker 2: second that after he was hit with the felony charges
Speaker 2: following the incident in February, Randall went on voluntary leave,
Speaker 2: but once those charges were pleaded down to the single misdemeanor,
Speaker 2: Randall requested that he'd be allowed to return to work,
Speaker 2: which the hospital team and the board of managers voted
Speaker 2: on and the legal team reviewed. After all that was done,
Speaker 2: Randall was allowed to go back to work. He told
Speaker 2: the judge on December second that he has been working
Speaker 2: again as a doctor since late October. So Michael Pierre,
Speaker 2: Randall's lawyer, brought up the book that she had written again.
Speaker 2: In that book, in a chapter called Lies Always Haunt,
Speaker 2: Charity wrote in the book she lied about Randall abusing
Speaker 2: her and that luckily he had forgiven her. Now this
Speaker 2: was back in twenty thirteen. Charity now claims in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five that what she wrote in the book was
Speaker 2: a lie. She said she did that so that Randall
Speaker 2: would pay the eighty thousand dollars in lawyer's fees. Charity
Speaker 2: stated she believed Randall had dissipated all marital assets and
Speaker 2: that Randall quote clearly wants to leave me with nothing
Speaker 2: and he wants to take my kids end quote. Randall
Speaker 2: and his attorney asked Charity, if Randal was so abusive,
Speaker 2: why she would return to the marriage. They pointed to
Speaker 2: text messages Charity sent after February sixteenth, in which she
Speaker 2: begged him to come back as evidence. Charity stated Randal
Speaker 2: used coerce of control on her, stating quote, that's also
Speaker 2: a very common tame with not to poke the bear.
Speaker 2: But with this personality, this control in every way, financial control,
Speaker 2: coercive control, when to go to bed, control when to eat,
Speaker 2: control who you can talk to, the friends you can have.
Speaker 2: But I found peace even in that until I saw
Speaker 2: that leaking into my children and they started walking on
Speaker 2: eggshells all the time, and you can see his rage
Speaker 2: coming end quote. The judge finally ruled on this divorce.
Speaker 2: She stated the marital home would be split, the home
Speaker 2: equity line of credit paid off, and then after that
Speaker 2: the home would be auctioned off within sixty days. Randal
Speaker 2: and Charity would split the proceeds of the sale.
Speaker 3: The judge then.
Speaker 2: Addressed the credibility of Charity and Randall. She stated she
Speaker 2: found Randall more credible. She said, quote, the court finds
Speaker 2: that the plainiff has some credibility issues. This is primarily
Speaker 2: based on the investigator's testimony regarding the Hamilton House interviews,
Speaker 2: meaning the interviews with the children that Randall's witnesses had
Speaker 2: claimed seemed coached. The judge ruled Charity and Randall would
Speaker 2: each receive their personal vehicles. The judge ended by saying, quote,
Speaker 2: this court has some very serious concerns with both of you.
Speaker 2: There has been a lot of history, I believe, based
Speaker 2: on the evidence presented to me, of domestic violence. The
Speaker 2: plaintiff has pulled a gun on the defendant. The defendant
Speaker 2: has pled to recklessly endangering the planiff in a misdemeanor
Speaker 2: domestic battery, and the court has to consider as one
Speaker 2: of the factors in determining custody whether or not domestic
Speaker 2: violence is in the home, and I have not heard
Speaker 2: any testimony fortunately of domestic violence as it relates to
Speaker 2: the children, or found any to be credible, and I'm
Speaker 2: not including the children on the order of protection end quote.
Speaker 2: The judge ruled Randall and Charity would have joint custody
Speaker 2: of the children. Randall would have them for two weeks
Speaker 2: at a time, followed by Charity for one week. After
Speaker 2: six months, the situation would be reevaluated. The schedule was
Speaker 2: due to start on December fifth, two days after Charity
Speaker 2: and the twins' bodies were found. The judge stated that
Speaker 2: she was quote concerned about the plaintiffs manipulation and control
Speaker 2: and any future harm to the children end quote.
Speaker 3: She meant Charity.
Speaker 2: The judge wrote that Randall quote has been compliant with treatment.
Speaker 2: He has presented evidence of stability and safety. His risk
Speaker 2: to others is low. He does not demonstrate antisocial or
Speaker 2: narcissistic personality traits that could potentially compromise his judgment or
Speaker 2: put others at risk. He does not have mania, psychosis,
Speaker 2: problems with impulse control or substance use. Neither party shall
Speaker 2: discuss the case or adult issues with the minor children
Speaker 2: outside of a therapeutic setting. Absentth the advice of the
Speaker 2: minor children counselor, Charity had pulled the children out of
Speaker 2: school and been homeschooling them. The judge ruled the children
Speaker 2: be re enrolled in school, and if Charity and Randall disagreed,
Speaker 2: the judge ruled to give Randall final say over their
Speaker 2: educational decision making. The judge ordered child support in the
Speaker 2: amount of two thousand, six hundred and twenty eight dollars
Speaker 2: a month, which Randal was supposed to start paying immediately.
Speaker 2: One question that has come up a lot in this
Speaker 2: confusing and pretty chaotic case is were Charity and Randall
Speaker 2: actually divorced at the time of the murders. From what
Speaker 2: the judge stated in the transcripts, she decided the conditions
Speaker 2: of the divorce on December second. According to my understanding,
Speaker 2: under normal circumstances, the divorce would have been finalized a
Speaker 2: day or two later once it was officially entered into
Speaker 2: the court record. But then Charity's son, John filed a
Speaker 2: motion to get her half of the marital state. He
Speaker 2: stated in his court filing he does not believe Charity
Speaker 2: Lie left a valid last will and testament. He believes
Speaker 2: that because the children she had with Randall are also dead,
Speaker 2: according to the laws of the state of Arkansas, John
Speaker 2: Powell thinks he should be entitled to inherit the estate
Speaker 2: of his mother. John stated in his petition the value
Speaker 2: of the estate was unknown. There have been a lot
Speaker 2: of strange developments in this case, even over the last week.
Speaker 2: As we said last week in Part one, the divorce
Speaker 2: was declared final on December second, but then on December fourth,
Speaker 2: one day after the bodies were found, Randal Biallis's attorney
Speaker 2: followed emotion arguing the divorce should be dismissed because it
Speaker 2: wasn't technically finalized. On December eighth, the judge ruled the
Speaker 2: marriage of Charity and Randall would instead be abated, meaning
Speaker 2: put on pause. Legally, normally, this is something that can
Speaker 2: be used as a tool if couples want to try
Speaker 2: to reconcile or if there are legal issues that need
Speaker 2: to be resolved.
Speaker 3: But if the spouse dies before the final.
Speaker 2: Degree is issued, there's something called abatement by death. It
Speaker 2: means that the divorce action ends and the couple remains
Speaker 2: legally married while the estate claims are being worked out.
Speaker 2: So it's unclear what the legal status is now whether
Speaker 2: Charity and the children's bodies will be released to John
Speaker 2: her Son or Randall, her husband after the crime lab
Speaker 2: is done with its testing. John Powell has also asked
Speaker 2: the court to order when the crime lab is finished,
Speaker 2: that the body of Charity be released to John Powell.
Speaker 2: He also asked in the court order that the bodies
Speaker 2: of his two half siblings be released to his care
Speaker 2: as well. He says that he wants to make funeral
Speaker 2: arrangements for his mother and half brother and half sisters
Speaker 2: so that they can receive a proper burial. Again, a
Speaker 2: lot of news stories have pointed to Randal by Allis
Speaker 2: as the possible killer. But another thing that's very confusing
Speaker 2: to me after reading these divorce documents is if Randall
Speaker 2: did kill Charity and the kids, what was his motive.
Speaker 3: Because we now know that the judge ordered.
Speaker 2: That Randall have more custody of his kids, that the
Speaker 2: divorce stated that Charity would go from having sole custody
Speaker 2: to joint custody. In fact, Randall was going to have
Speaker 2: the kids the majority of the time. Randall's attorney, Michael Pearce,
Speaker 2: has told multiple media outlets. Randal was actually going to
Speaker 2: be able to see his children more going forward. He
Speaker 2: was actually due to pick them up shortly after the
Speaker 2: divorce was finalized. Is there someone else that would have
Speaker 2: had a reason to hurt Charity? Could this have been
Speaker 2: some sort of murder suicide situation. Could she have felt,
Speaker 2: possibly that Randall was a monster and that if her
Speaker 2: children went back to him they would be in danger.
Speaker 2: Could she have irrationally believed.
Speaker 3: She was protecting them?
Speaker 2: Again, we have to wait for information to come out
Speaker 2: via law enforcement, because while we can track down a
Speaker 2: lot of information through court documents and social media commentary,
Speaker 2: there is still a lot that we don't know about
Speaker 2: forensics and that we don't know about these killings. But
Speaker 2: we will keep you posted as more information develops. Investigators
Speaker 2: have not announced any suspects and have not arrested anyone
Speaker 2: in connection with this case. They haven't even officially stated
Speaker 2: this was a homicide once again. Randal Billis's attorney, Michael Pierce,
Speaker 2: has repeatedly stated Randall had nothing to do with Charity
Speaker 2: in the children's death, that Randal was devastated that he
Speaker 2: expected to be taking custody of his children, and he's
Speaker 2: now faced with the reality of planning their funerals. Charity's
Speaker 2: social media posts and the months before her death were
Speaker 2: getting increasingly desperate, she posted on the news website KFSM five.
Speaker 3: News Facebook page. In August.
Speaker 2: She claims she had written a letter to Sebastian County
Speaker 2: prosecuting attorney Daniel Schue. She said Daniel would not accept
Speaker 2: a letter from her regarding alleged domestic violence by Randall.
Speaker 3: The judge, Shannon Blatt.
Speaker 2: Who granted the divorce, finalized the hearing by saying, quote,
Speaker 2: I have a little sticky note that says, don't dislike
Speaker 2: each other more than you love your children. And your
Speaker 2: children deserve love, and they deserve that from.
Speaker 3: Both of you.
Speaker 2: I expect you to put your children first and make
Speaker 2: them your priority and make sure they are raised in
Speaker 2: a happy, healthy and loving environment.
Speaker 3: End quote.
Speaker 2: We said, this case continues to have a lot of
Speaker 2: twists and turns. Even the judge, Shannon Blatt, has been
Speaker 2: the target of alleged threats. On December twelfth, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: forty twenty nine News reported that Shannon Blatt, the judge
Speaker 2: who ruled on the divorce, told police that Charity's father
Speaker 2: Randy Powell called her on the day Charity and her
Speaker 2: children were found dead at their home. She said Randy
Speaker 2: was in a rage. Judge Blatt wrote a letter to
Speaker 2: both attorneys Charity's and Randall's, discussing the phone calls she
Speaker 2: received on December third. In that letter, which was dated
Speaker 2: December eleventh, she wrote that Randy Powell, Charity's father, accused
Speaker 2: her the judge.
Speaker 3: Of being responsible for Charity's death.
Speaker 2: The letters stated that quote specifically, mister Powell stated the
Speaker 2: judge might as well have pulled the trigger herself, and
Speaker 2: that the judge essentially killed his daughter and grandchildren. Randy
Speaker 2: also stated the court has blood on her hands and
Speaker 2: asked if the court was still going to keep him
Speaker 2: from his grandchildren end quote. The judge was so disturbed
Speaker 2: by this call that, according to court records, someone at
Speaker 2: the court reported the call to the Fort Smith Police Department,
Speaker 2: and they apparently took this seriously because the police chief,
Speaker 2: according to news reports that cite the police department call logs,
Speaker 2: ordered extra security for Judge Powell.
Speaker 3: Forty twenty nine. Knews spoke to Judge Powell about her reaction.
Speaker 2: What did she think when she heard about what happened
Speaker 2: inside that home. The judge told the news station. Quote,
Speaker 2: I don't know how to describe it, Sir tears, heart broken, unbelievable,
Speaker 2: and anger thinking maybe I was dreaming of somebody having
Speaker 2: a nightmare in that way. Maybe somebody will wake me
Speaker 2: up and this wouldn't be true. End quote. I'm Katherine Townsend.
Speaker 2: This is Helen Gone Murder Line. Helen Gone Murder Line
Speaker 2: is a production of School of Humans and iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 2: It's written and narrated by me Catherine Townsend and produced
Speaker 2: by Etaly Perez. Special thanks to Amy Tubbs for her
Speaker 2: research assistance and to James Wheaton for legal review. Noah
Speaker 2: camer mixed and scored this episode. Our theme song is
Speaker 2: by Ben Sale. Executive producers are Virginia Prescott, Brandon Barr,
Speaker 2: and LC Crowley. Listen to Helen Gone ad free by
Speaker 2: subscribing to the iHeart True Crime Plus channel on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 2: If you are interested in seeing documents and materials from
Speaker 2: the case, you can follow the show on Instagram at
Speaker 2: Helen Gone Pod. If you have a case you'd like
Speaker 2: me and my team to look into, you can reach
Speaker 2: out to us at our Helen Gone Murder line at
Speaker 2: six seven eight seven four four six' one four. Five
Speaker 2: that's six seven eight seven four four six' one.
Speaker 3: Four five
Speaker 1: School of humans